The Thin Boo Line

What kind of marketing is cheered and which is jeered? Or, in other words, what is deemed "acceptable" and what isn't? eMarketer tells us:

A recent survey fielded by Harris Interactive and the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), found that general consumers, business executives and congressional staffers are more likely to trust traditional marketing methods over non-traditional or newer techniques.

A majority of respondents within each group felt traditional marketing methods — such as paid advertising, corporate sponsorships and paid spokespeople — were acceptable practices. Newer marketing practices, such as paying private citizens to promote products, Internet pop-up and ads in text messages, were viewed as less acceptable.

I fully expect this to change in the coming years.

Speaking of "boo," slightly off-topic, but related, is that sports sponsorhsip has gotten completely out of control. Many years ago, I thought it silly when companies started sponsoring football kickoffs (what--if they couldn't get a sponsor there wouldn't be one?) but now there is seemingly no aspect of professional or even collegiate sports that is not sponsored by someone.

To wit: I made the mistake of watching the Notre Dame-Syracuse game on Saturday (don't even ask, but if you were going to sponsor that game, Prozac would have been the obvious choice) and Silly Thing #1 was that some company (I think one of the beer companies but I don't remember) sponsored that yellow first down line they superimpose on the field. Silly Thing #2 was that Charles Schwab sponsored a conversation between the two announcers. Yes, it was called the "Charles Schwab Conversation." I am not making that up. Goofy idea, but there is the kernel of a good idea there. If I had the money to sponsor some aspect of a football or basketball game, I'd pay to have the announcers stop talking. I'd call it the "Romano Blissful Silence."